Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

It's not learning to read that has value. It's appreciation for what is in books and a desire to go there that has value. This is a mindset, and should be nurtured as early as possible.

I agree with this. Parents do this every time they read to their child and every time their child sees them read.

I read to both of my kids and they're both good readers. Interestingly, it's my late reader who is my prolific reader. I'd have to pay dd#1 to actually read an entire book. To her, reading is a tool. She uses it to find the information she wants but for entertainment, she'd rather see the movie. I often wonder if this has to do with the fact that I really didn't have time to read myself when she was little. I didn't start reading for enjoyment again until she was about 6 and her sister was about 4. I think kids need to see parents reading for pleasure.

It shouldn't be formal. You can't do phonetics and phonemes. You read along with the kid (isn't it still done with kids as young as 6 months?) and point out pictures, words and what nots. The kids begins to enjoy the time reading (hopefully) and begins to pick it up.

By the time I was in 3rd grade I was reading at a 5th grade level and EVERYONE could tell. The opposite in those in high school who did not start reading at 3 or 4 years of age and were reading at a 3rd grade level and EVERYONE could tell...

Are you saying that kids who don't start reading at 3 or 4 are reading on a 3rd grade level in high school? I have one who started reading at 6 1/2 who was on a 9th grade reading level by 3rd grade. We haven't tested her since then because we know she's well above grade level so there's no need. Dd#1 started reading at 5 and was on a 5th grade level in 3rd grade with a catch....Turns out she only memorized words. She didn't actually read them. We had to have her tutored in phonics.

I learned to "read" at age 3. Having learned my letters, I would spell items to my Mother as we put groceries away after a shopping trip. When I entered first grade, I was instructed to bring my Mother to school to talk to the teacher, who demanded to know where I had gone to school prior to enrolling in this one. No one in the class was reading on the same level as I.

Saying "let the school teach them" is sad. Our little ones were always excited about being read to and learning how to write their letters as young as 2 1/2 - 3 y.o. When those hungry little minds want to learn how to do something, the time is now.

I learned to "read" at age 3. Having learned my letters, I would spell items to my Mother as we put groceries away after a shopping trip. When I entered first grade, I was instructed to bring my Mother to school to talk to the teacher, who demanded to know where I had gone to school prior to enrolling in this one. No one in the class was reading on the same level as I.

Saying "let the school teach them" is sad. Our little ones were always excited about being read to and learning how to write their letters as young as 2 1/2 - 3 y.o. When those hungry little minds want to learn how to do something, the time is now.

BUT, there is NO advantage to teaching them early!!! NONE. They don't end up reading better and they don't like reading more and they just end up sitting there waiting for their peers to be taught to read once school starts!! It is not necessary or advantageous for a child to be reading before they start school, unless reading before starting school is the norm and it isn't. It's one thing if the child picks it up on their own but quite another to start "teaching" reading. Pre-school kids don't need to be formally taught. If they did, we'd start school a lot younger.

The point is, there is NO advantage to teaching children to read early. It's just done for parental bragging rights and that does not sit right with me. Let them learn when they decide to learn. There is plenty of other stuff for them to learn in the meantime. I'm in the choose enrichment camp. I see no reason to teach my child what they will learn in school before they start school when I can teach my child things they will not learn in school. It's very likely that the early piano lessons I gave my girls are the reason they didn't read until kindergarten/first grade, however, that imparted a lifetime advantage in logical thinking skills, math ability and science ability, not to mention musical ability while starting to read at 6 and 6 1/2 made no difference at all. Both of my girls are good readers and both of them read well above grade level. Only one is an avid reader but that has to do with personality and, I suspect, the fact I was just too busy to read myself when she was a preschooler. I think if she'd seen me read more she might read more herself. I set a poor example here because I was too busy to read for pleasure.

I am not saying don't teach your kids. I'm saying teach your kids something that matters. Teaching them to read early just doesn't. It doesn't insure they will be good readers or that they will like to read. Most likely, all that will happen is by 5th grade, their peers will catch up with them.

While I'm in the no academics before school camp, I'm not as bad as my SIL who didn't even teach her kids the alphabet. Guess what? They're both avid readers and working on their PhD's. One in psychology and the other in history. The fact my SIL didn't teach them their alphabet before they started kindergarten (they did not attend preschool either) is irrelevant. They're probably smarter for having been allowed to explore and learn sans formal teaching. My SIL provided an enriched environment that included reading to her kids but there was no formal education before school. It has worked very well for her kids. They both LOVED school and they're both very bright and good students.

BUT, there is NO advantage to teaching them early!!! NONE. They don't end up reading better and they don't like reading more and they just end up sitting there waiting for their peers to be taught to read once school starts!! It is not necessary or advantageous for a child to be reading before they start school, unless reading before starting school is the norm and it isn't. It's one thing if the child picks it up on their own but quite another to start "teaching" reading. Pre-school kids don't need to be formally taught. If they did, we'd start school a lot younger.

The point is, there is NO advantage to teaching children to read early. It's just done for parental bragging rights and that does not sit right with me. Let them learn when they decide to learn. There is plenty of other stuff for them to learn in the meantime. I'm in the choose enrichment camp. I see no reason to teach my child what they will learn in school before they start school when I can teach my child things they will not learn in school. It's very likely that the early piano lessons I gave my girls are the reason they didn't read until kindergarten/first grade, however, that imparted a lifetime advantage in logical thinking skills, math ability and science ability, not to mention musical ability while starting to read at 6 and 6 1/2 made no difference at all. Both of my girls are good readers and both of them read well above grade level. Only one is an avid reader but that has to do with personality and, I suspect, the fact I was just too busy to read myself when she was a preschooler. I think if she'd seen me read more she might read more herself. I set a poor example here because I was too busy to read for pleasure.

I am not saying don't teach your kids. I'm saying teach your kids something that matters. Teaching them to read early just doesn't. It doesn't insure they will be good readers or that they will like to read. Most likely, all that will happen is by 5th grade, their peers will catch up with them.

While I'm in the no academics before school camp, I'm not as bad as my SIL who didn't even teach her kids the alphabet. Guess what? They're both avid readers and working on their PhD's. One in psychology and the other in history. The fact my SIL didn't teach them their alphabet before they started kindergarten (they did not attend preschool either) is irrelevant. They're probably smarter for having been allowed to explore and learn sans formal teaching. My SIL provided an enriched environment that included reading to her kids but there was no formal education before school. It has worked very well for her kids. They both LOVED school and they're both very bright and good students.

I value the enjoyment that I got out of reading from 4 until 6 when I began school. I consider that enjoyment a personal advantage. My parents weren't into the "child olympics" and really didn't care that my great-grandmother had taught me to read. I do remember being astounded that no one else in first grade knew how to read. I thought it was a bit sad. If I had not been taught, I probably would have picked it up on my own. We did make the decision to not teach our children to read early, but if they had asked, we would have done so. Our daughter still began school a year early. It has worked out well now that she is in medical school.

I value the enjoyment that I got out of reading from 4 until 6 when I began school. I consider that enjoyment a personal advantage. My parents weren't into the "child olympics" and really didn't care that my great-grandmother had taught me to read. I do remember being astounded that no one else in first grade knew how to read. I thought it was a bit sad. If I had not been taught, I probably would have picked it up on my own. We did make the decision to not teach our children to read early, but if they had asked, we would have done so. Our daughter still began school a year early. It has worked out well now that she is in medical school.

Some kids will read on their own before school and some won't. I'm just in the camp of letting the child decide. If you have to resort to "teaching" reading, they're not ready. If they pick it up on their own, great, it's what they were meant to be doing. I just don't get "teaching" reading to a preschooler. I don't see the point. Seriously, my dd was not ready to learn to read at 4. She knew her letters and had memorized the spelling of dozens of words but it was just memory games for her. She didn't get that letters made sounds. Each word was a unique symbol to her. She memorized several books and would "read" them to me but I didn't bother correcting mistakes or teaching phonics.

I'm not sure why America has a love affair with early academics. The only thing I can think of is parental bragging rights. (Parents seem to be looking for validation through their kids these days) I'm not sure it's beneficial in any way yet we keep pushing kids to learn earlier and earlier. I'm in the let kids be kids camp. They do tend to teach each other and that's fine. Dd#2 started school more "school ready" as they measure school readiness, not because we taught her but because she and her sister would play "school". Dd#2, naturally, picked up what dd#1 was learning. Later, when it became apparent that dd#1 had a problem with decoding words, I bought Hooked on Phonics and had dd#1 "teach" it to dd#2. Worked like a charm. She got to be big sister, play school and both girls learned phonics in the process (our school was teaching whole language).

As a teacher, I think it would be better to spend time teaching kids to have compassion and empathy. Kids today are very self centered and cold. They're mean to each other. They can't stand it if someone else does better than them (I think this stems from giving everyone a trophy and rewarding effort instead of results). We'd do better to teach them to be good citizens, at 4, than to teach them to read. We're teaching them, from a very early age, that everything is about THEM. It's no wonder they can't see others.

In another forum it was brought up about teaching a child to read. He is 4 and the consensus is that he is too young and should just let the school teach him when he gets to K. One person said that learning to read early has no value. How could reading ever have no value? How old were you when you learned to read? Or taught your children?

People who say that must be out of their minds, unless they themselves are bad at teaching, in which case not everybody else is. I learned to read before I was in kindergarten and was also mildly introduced to a couple of other languages as well.

I think it would be a huge mistake to leave all education to teachers and the school system. That's like getting a child off on the wrong foot and they'll have a harder time hitting the ground running. They may not understand learning at that point. Besides, teaching one's kid is also a bonding experience.

Reading to a three year old every night is not teaching him to read, is it? If so then 99% of my friends taught their kids to read.

I'm not talking about reading to them. The question, on the other board, was on how to "teach" reading. I'm opposed to "teaching" reading. I don't think 4 year olds need formal teaching. I think they're fine learning by exploring, and observing. I read to my kids before they were born (seems kind of silly now ). I did not, however, "teach" them to read. They picked it up on their own.

Dd#1 did need help with phonics because the school was teaching whole language but she was 8 when we did that.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.